Redsetter,

Lots of products have been, and still are, sold without having ever been publicly advertised.
Some still move from maker to buyer simply by word of mouth alone.

BP wrote on Jun 9^th, 2018 at 1:19pm:


Sure, that's possible, but by manufacturers that place heavy emphasis on advertising their products, as Fecker did?  Does it not strain your credulity to believe that he advertised every other product & service, offered to build custom scopes, & upgrade his older models, but somehow overlooked this ONE item?  And not a word in his catalogs, either?  That strikes you as reasonable?

My point of view, regarding this is, that advertising, is one of the primary things that we, SS guys (and other historians) use to date objects and credit "first" to. 

Until we see something that predates Unertl's advertisement, I think we need to give him credit. 

Frank

As I said, and will repeat again! I'll gladly give Unertl credit for being first to advertise the product for sale. But that does not mean he should be credited for coming up with it. It's an assumption, and not based on facts.
It's not an earth shattering invention as it was never likely patented, so that in itself would explain why nobody else made mention of offering them, or complained when Unertl offered them in their catalog.
The fact that he advertised them first, or you don't have catalogs for other offerings still doesn't prove anything as to Unertl being the designer. It simply shows what it shows.
Fecker was indeed active in advertising, but his  ads are not full of new designs. They advertise his products and show he regularly advertised. What's missing from his ads should not be construed as products he didn't offer, but rather where his emphasis was.
I still think it's irresponsible to start an internet myth about Unertl designing the recoil spring until we have more proof he did so for sure. For now we only know he offered it in advertisements, not that he designed it.

Redsetter wrote on Jun 9^th, 2018 at 3:47pm:

"Mister Lawyer, I was selling them to walk-in customers. The reason they aren't shown in my catalogs and advertising is that I had other 'higher demand' inventory I desired to sell that generated greater cumulative income for the business."

BP wrote on Jun 9^th, 2018 at 4:00pm:


"Where are those walk-in customers" Unertl's lawyer would say, "let's get them on the witness stand."

He'd also say, "do you expect the court to believe that this product was SO insignificant that an extra half-dozen words in your catalog was too much trouble for you to take--esp. when the page on which other accessories were listed had plenty of blank space? Whereas Mr. Unertl obviously though the item was very significant, being the FIRST product he advertised, even before his scopes!"

It was insignificant enough that Unertl didn't patent it? 
This whole scenario of a lawsuit is ridiculous! There wasn't any law suit between Fecker and Unertl, so why do you continue to run through scenarios for an event that never happened?
You know damn good and well that Fecker sold rings to Unertl for his scopes. Do you really believe that because he first offered Stevens and Winchester rings that it's some evidence they were on bad terms? Fecker would never have sold Unertl rings if they were on bad terms! Not at any time. Is this just more of your imagination trying to support your claim?
They were friends, and a little return spring would never have ended the friendship or caused a law suit!

Redsetter wrote on Jun 9^th, 2018 at 4:29pm:


Was Fecker's production capabilities of mounts insufficient to be able to supply the needs for both himself and for Unertl, thereby requiring Unertl to find a source for mounts elsewhere from a supplier who had far greater total production capabilities?